CITY LABOR AGREEMENTS:  PROHIBIT

CERTAIN AUTOMATIC ENTITLEMENT

House Bill 4696 as introduced

Sponsor:  Rep. Fred Durhal III

Committee:  Local Government

Complete to 10-20-15

SUMMARY:

House Bill 4696 would amend the Public Employment Relations Act (Public Act 336 of 1947) and applies to a city that has a population of 500,000 or more and that has a police bargaining unit of at least 1,000 public police department employees. Only the City of Detroit meets these two criteria. 

The bill specifies that in such a city, the subject of automatic entitlement to more favorable terms and conditions of employment (e.g., salary and wage increases) that are subsequently granted or otherwise applied to the police bargaining unit with at least 1,000 employers, may not be negotiated with any other bargaining unit of the public employer.  (This appears to mean that another bargaining unit cannot negotiate an agreement that makes them automatically entitled to the more favorable terms and conditions of employment granted to the 1,000-member police bargaining unit.)

Moreover, if a public employer and another bargaining unit include a provision that purports to grant such an automatic entitlement in a collective bargaining agreement entered into after the bill is enacted, that provision would be void.

The bill defines "public police department employee" to mean an employee of the city police department who is engaged as a police officer but does not include an individual employed by a private company who works under a contract with a governmental unit or an individual whose duties are solely of an administrative or supporting nature.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The bill would likely have a fiscal impact on the City of Detroit to the extent that it would alter the permissible topics negotiated between the City of Detroit and the Detroit Police Lieutenants and Sergeants Association or the Detroit Police Command Officers Association relating to a collective bargaining agreement; this would have an indeterminate effect on the strategies and outcomes of the negotiations.

                                                                                        Legislative Analyst:   J. Hunault

                                                                                                Fiscal Analyst:   Paul Holland

■ This analysis was prepared by nonpartisan House Fiscal Agency staff for use by House members in their deliberations, and does not constitute an official statement of legislative intent.